Looters are people too. They deserve our respect for what they do. Whether done for fun and profit or for protest against imagined injustice, looting is a time tested benevolent American activity which should be honored and revered.
That’s what’s being taught to college students at the prestigious Ivy League Yale University these days. The University’s divinity school hired “Black-Lives-Matter” leader, DeRay Mckesson, to lecture classes on the historical merits of looting as an admirable form of protest.
“The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power,” is the message appearing in “The New Inquiry” magazine entitled entitled “In Defense of Looting.”
“On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, ‘opportunistically,’ and in excess.”
“The relationship and tension between protest and property destruction is something that America has grappled with since the Revolutionary War & the Boston Tea Party,” Mckesson explains.
The Revolutionary War?; the Boston Tea Party? Am I missing something here? This guy is actually comparing the recent savage looting and property destruction rampages in Ferguson Missouri, Baltimore Maryland and elsewhere to the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party?
Now I’ve heard everything. The Boston Tea Party was not about looting. The tea was thrown overboard. It wasn’t stolen. The Revolutionary war was not about looting and property destruction. It was about establishing American independence from the tyrannical authority of the King of England.
The reality of the matter is that this delusional fool is getting paid for conning gullible naïve college students into believing that all Blacks are the victims of white privilege which justifies theft and destruction of property. He tries to justify Michael Brown brazenly committing a strong armed robbery in a convenience store, charging a police officer trying to arrest him, followed by the looting a property destruction after he was shot by the cop in self defense.
Those looters weren’t breaking into stores and stealing property as a means of protest. Their sole motive was the criminal opportunity to acquire free stuff. They were and are criminals. What kind of respect is a criminal looter and wanton property destroyer entitled to? In my opinion they richly deserved to be shot and killed on the spot. Any reasonable store owner should have the right to defend his life and property with a high powered rifle, picking the looting criminals off one by one as they entered his premises unlawfully with intent to pillage and destroy.
That’s what respecting the looter should be about.